Colorado's future depends on making the best decisions to meet our energy needs while also protecting the environment, our communities and our families. Coloradans are right to question whether coal is still the right energy source for our state, because with advances in leaner, more efficient and increasingly cost-competitive energy technologies, the benefits of coal as a power source are wani...

We should continue our transition away from fossil fuels. The coal fired plant in Pueblo should be the last one built.

When I grew up we had a coal stove. That stove was the source of cooking and our hot water. I find the microwave a much more convienient means of much of my cooking and electric heaters a source of hot water. The kerosene lamps are no longer needed. The solar panels on my roof provide all the energy needed to run all of these house hold devices and supply some for other to use as well.

All fossil fuels leave significant environmental problems at extraction, transportation, refining or use, and waste disposal phases. While metal contamination from coal may not release metals in the air, there is still a waste disposal problem. The removal of carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur products from release into the air is an improvement but there is still a matter of the long-term stable storage of these products.

So while I have fond memories of cutting kindling, breaking up coal and carrying it in to the house, getting the fire started, carrying out ashes, the whole process was very inefficient and time consuming.

We need to move toward a more efficient system with distributed energy generation and storage. The continued foot dragging is hurting us in many ways: environmentally, physically, and economically. I will emphasize the economical part because so many fail to understand the long term economic advantages and argue short term with points that are incomplete in their analysis.

I am all for moving to cleaner energy. BUT not until there is a reliable form available. The greenies wanted to go to natural gas, now that we are moving in that direction, they no longer want that. Let's work into the new without throwing out what works now.

I'm sorry, maybe I missed it. Exactly what was proposed to replace coal as a source of electricity generation? I saw more energy efficient production and storage. What does that mean? More wind? More solar? Natural gas? Hydroelectric? What happens when the sun isn't shining? Or the wind is not blowing? Or the enviros object to damming water surces? How many wind turbines are needed? How will solar work? What else is there if these two aren't enough to provide the electricity we need?

Last edited by Suvkix on June 18th, 2012, 8:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Suvkix wrote:I'm sorry, maybe I missed it. Exactly what was proposed to replace coal as a source of electricity generation? I saw more energy efficient production and storage. What does that mean? More wind? More solar? Natural gas? Hydroelectric? What happens we the sun isn't shining? Or the wind is not blowing? Or the enviros object to damming water surces! How many wind turbines are needed? How will solar work? What else is there if these two aren't enough to provide the electricity we need?

I do not understand why it is so difficult to understand the process of changing the way energy will be used. Perhaps it is because most people have not seen that many changes so it is difficult to think outside the box. Perhaps it is because they do not understand physics and other sciences.

I suspect very few people have lived where a coal stove provided the heat for the house and the hot water supply. I suspect very few people have much experience with kerosene lamps and tube radios. Nor do they have much experience with solar panels and solid state physics. It does not take much imagination or knowledge of physics to recognize that LED lights, microwaves ovens, and cell phones are much more efficient in terms of energy use and a lot more convenient.Further, there is not much discussion about how PV panels will soon be several times more efficient with improvements in bandwidth and band gap. Remember we are talking about a process and these things will likely not replace coal for the operation of the electric furnace at the steel mill for the next 30 or 40 years. But even the current less efficient panels more than supply all my electrical needs. Solar heating can do most of the heating on cold days and by the use of thermal mass storage can also supply heat at night and for a few cloudy days.

It may be difficult to understand why moving away from the Westinghouse model of AC electricity with a distant central plant to something more like the Edison model of disturbed local generation with a DC system. DC voltages changes can now be made that were not available in the time of Edison. The voltage conversions approach the efficiency of transformer conversions and by the time the inefficiency of multiple transformer conversions are taken into account a DC system make a lot more sense for the future. Things like LEDs and most solid state electronics work best on low voltage and low current DC.

Many storage methods are easier with DC as well. Remember the conversion to a new energy economy is a process that will not occur overnight. The more carefully it is planned the less costly it will be in the long run. One of the first steps in the process is the building and improving of renewable generation capacity. Once enough capacity is established then various storage capacities can be build. It does not make economic sense to build storage capacity when you factor the inefficacy of storage and the cost of fuel. As long as there is significant fuel costs it makes better sense to build new generation capacity. But when fuel cost is zero it makes sense to build storage capacity.

So if we continue the process and not let it be interrupted like it was 30 years ago, then we can easily move away from fossil fouls. That process will place us in an improved economic and security position. If we direct our capital costs into building things like more coal fired plants that we will be stuck with for the next 30-40 years, then this country can expect an economic decline similar to that seen by the British Empire.

America has centuries of a coal - a proven energy source - yet the EPA has spent the past three years enacting heavy-handed regulations that are attacking the coal industry, destroying jobs and increasing the cost of electricity for millions of American families and businesses. Now is the time for America to utilize our most plentiful energy resource - coal.

consilience2 wrote:I do not understand why it is so difficult to understand the process of changing the way energy will be used. Perhaps it is because most people have not seen that many changes so it is difficult to think outside the box. Perhaps it is because they do not understand physics and other sciences.

You don't understand why??? Let me assist your thought process...

Perhaps what you don't understand is that all of the "modern" things you mentioned became part of normal, everyday use as the market accepted their efficiency. None were *forced* on us - that's the difference. However, this is not the case with "renewable" energy. It's being rammed up our rears whether it's practical or not by politicians pandering to enviros. To heck with the economy and too bad about your standard of living.

You mention things like LEDs, thermal storage, and solid state physics. None of these are efficient enough to have a payback in our lifetimes. When short sighted goals are forced, they are often not for the better. Just look at the CF light bulb debacle. They're obsolete before the law forcing them on us is even in effect.

I'm not a big advocate for coal, but if it can be used in a clean manner to create power, there's no reason we should have to reduce our standard of living during the period that better sources of power are developed.

"In Colorado and across the West, we are already experiencing increased wildfires, lower snowpack levels and shrinking water supplies; we can't afford to continue to allow our energy production to exacerbate those problems."Please validate this claim as to how it is associated with burning coal. Wildfires are associated with drought... not the burning of coal. Lower snowpack.... let's see? how many cyclical climatic patterns exist that affect precipitation... El Nino, La Nina, the North Atlantic Oscillation, to name a few, but not burning coal. Coal adds to the greenhouse gases that our rising into our atmosphere and contributing to global warming, as does driving cars, but I'm sure you're not going to give up your car or taking public transportation, which inevitably adds to increased greenhouse gas pollution. The point being is until we have a unified national program, similar to building the atomic bomb or getting a man to the moon, that is committed to developing and using clean, alternative and renewable fuels, we will need coal to bridge the gap. But do not preface your editorial with claims that have no basis.

The World will immediately abandon coal and adopt renewable energy when - and ONLY when - it is proven that renewable energy is significantly more cost-effective than coal-fired electricity.

Coal-fired electricity became the preferred energy source immediately after it was proven to be an order of magnitude more efficient than waterwheels, and far safer than gas lamps

Meanwhile, I challenge you to calculate the watt/hours consumed by: your PC, cell-phone charger, iPad/iPod charges, and your TV/cable box versus ALL the other appliances that you own. I'm willing to be that your PC gobbles more juice than your refrigerator.

So, until you are willing to "reduce your carbon-footprint" by turning off all your personally-entertaining electronics; I suggest you get off your soapbox, lady.

consilience2 wrote:I do not understand why it is so difficult to understand the process of changing the way energy will be used. Perhaps it is because most people have not seen that many changes so it is difficult to think outside the box. Perhaps it is because they do not understand physics and other sciences.

You don't understand why??? Let me assist your thought process...

Perhaps what you don't understand is that all of the "modern" things you mentioned became part of normal, everyday use as the market accepted their efficiency. None were *forced* on us - that's the difference. However, this is not the case with "renewable" energy. It's being rammed up our rears whether it's practical or not by politicians pandering to enviros. To heck with the economy and too bad about your standard of living.

You mention things like LEDs, thermal storage, and solid state physics. None of these are efficient enough to have a payback in our lifetimes. When short sighted goals are forced, they are often not for the better. Just look at the CF light bulb debacle. They're obsolete before the law forcing them on us is even in effect.

I'm not a big advocate for coal, but if it can be used in a clean manner to create power, there's no reason we should have to reduce our standard of living during the period that better sources of power are developed.

I agree that government does not always display understanding of many issues and gives way to special interest groups. Corn based ethanol production and the light bulb issues are two examples of many of how government gets things wrong.

However, government is also the thing that protects rights of the poor and less powerful from the abuse of the richer and more powerful. It is also government that has the ability to direct resources to meet our long term economic and security goals. If you really believe that government should get out of everything then you must support all our military being run by small local militias. I would not like to trust out national security to local militias in spite of the missteps of the federal military. We need to exercise oversight and find ways to reduce these missteps and find balance.

In the case of fossil fuels it is the responsibility of the government to protect the rights and health of all. While not all regulations are smart and even good regulations are not always well administered, government regulations have prevented the wholesale use of the commons to benefit a few to the detriment of many.

It is the many who object to having things shoved down their throats or up their noses in the form of multiple pollutants form the production and use of fossil fuels. There are many who also object to getting stuck with the economic consequence of staying with coal. Capital decision made today will have impact for most of our lifetimes. It is good to know that you are happy to have a billion dollar debt to be paid back with interest over the next 30 years for the coal fired plant in Pueblo. You are pleased to support a plant that will have ever increasing fuel costs.

I am not please with either the pollution or the economic burden when I see things like PV panels that will several times more efficient and significantly less expensive in the near future. In the next 10 years the output/cost will be 10 to 100 times better than it is today. Just like computer technology has changed a lot in the last 40 years, so too will the power industry. The old power infrastructure will be as much out of date in 40 years as a 40 year old computer is today.

consilience2 wrote:I do not understand why it is so difficult to understand the process of changing the way energy will be used. Perhaps it is because most people have not seen that many changes so it is difficult to think outside the box. Perhaps it is because they do not understand physics and other sciences.

You don't understand why??? Let me assist your thought process...

Perhaps what you don't understand is that all of the "modern" things you mentioned became part of normal, everyday use as the market accepted their efficiency. None were *forced* on us - that's the difference. However, this is not the case with "renewable" energy. It's being rammed up our rears whether it's practical or not by politicians pandering to enviros. To heck with the economy and too bad about your standard of living.

You mention things like LEDs, thermal storage, and solid state physics. None of these are efficient enough to have a payback in our lifetimes. When short sighted goals are forced, they are often not for the better. Just look at the CF light bulb debacle. They're obsolete before the law forcing them on us is even in effect.

I'm not a big advocate for coal, but if it can be used in a clean manner to create power, there's no reason we should have to reduce our standard of living during the period that better sources of power are developed.

I agree with you except for the part about "ramming it up our rears"...one point consilience made earlier was that the shift towards renewable's had started over thirty years ago, but was stopped. Also, there are the younger generation that is looking at how the world is run today and they are scared..As mentioned earlier by consilience, we need to do this smartly and with longterm planning, part of which includes not putting undue burdens on regular taxpaying folks. Lastly, I am an advocate for coal, mainly because it is cheap, abundant and provides jobs for folks.

A major factor in all religions can be described by the tenet Tikkun Olam

RichardGooznyu wrote:"In Colorado and across the West, we are already experiencing increased wildfires, lower snowpack levels and shrinking water supplies; we can't afford to continue to allow our energy production to exacerbate those problems."Please validate this claim as to how it is associated with burning coal. Wildfires are associated with drought... not the burning of coal. Lower snowpack.... let's see? how many cyclical climatic patterns exist that affect precipitation... El Nino, La Nina, the North Atlantic Oscillation, to name a few, but not burning coal. Coal adds to the greenhouse gases that our rising into our atmosphere and contributing to global warming, as does driving cars, but I'm sure you're not going to give up your car or taking public transportation, which inevitably adds to increased greenhouse gas pollution. The point being is until we have a unified national program, similar to building the atomic bomb or getting a man to the moon, that is committed to developing and using clean, alternative and renewable fuels, we will need coal to bridge the gap. But do not preface your editorial with claims that have no basis.

I think the point was that in the web of life, if one system gets affected, i.e. more greenhouse gas emissions causing higher than normal temperatures, than we can expect freakish weather and other aspects of our ecology being affected. Another example might be the pine beetle infestation, while normally kept in check by cooler temp's, flourishing during the drought of the early 2000's...millions of dead acreage later plus the second warmest May since record keeping began in 1880, with the first being in 2010, and you get the drift of it.

A major factor in all religions can be described by the tenet Tikkun Olam